Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Jimmy, a lot of us are bewildered and are finding it very hard to understand, why you continue to spin and distract. I do understand that your current strategy is to pin a bunch of this on Damon. That is not going to fly. You are not accountable to anyone, Jimmy. That you can write things like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Hm.. in my experience, legal departments focus above all on managing risk on behalf of their clients and using the legal system to the maximal benefit of the organization of which they are a part. In my view, putting Transparency in Legal is a recipe for minimal disclosure, not maximal. The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

This is kind of frustrating. Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we changed " message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

Here is a response to Denny's resignation; his email has been sticking to me. To provide some context for what follows, I work a lot on COI and advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and worked on COI issues professionally at a university for the past 15 years. The limitations created by managing or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

Dealing with COI is more than just declaring it. It also needs to be managed. Denny's COI issues were apparently somewhat self-managed to a certain extent, but please pay mind to this part of what he wrote: I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate to pursue as

[Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Hi This is my first posting here. Sorry if I do anything wrong. I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html And I guess this one too

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

s publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until > > after some more pressing things have been sorted out. > > > > I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective > of > > whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing. > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say. It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did support Lila) vs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

<risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than > is really there. > > Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself > trust-destroying for [him]". He said it was a mistake, and he said it wa

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia is basically just another giant bureaucracy

That piece is abysmally bad "science journalism" (I can't even write it without scare quotes, it is so bad). To hell with it. Ignore it. The paper they are writing about (http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/8/2/14/html) is published in an MDPI open access journal; MDPI is borderline "predatory

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia is basically just another giant bureaucracy

So many typos, sorry. ack. On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > That piece is abysmally bad "science journalism" (I can't even write it > without scare quotes, it is so bad). To hell with it. Ignore it. > > The paper they are writing a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

I like that, Pine. I would add, procedure to disclose and manage conflicts of interest that board members might have, in our context. That would bring in the matters around Denny's departure. Those four things. On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Pine W wrote: > I will make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

. Have a very good day, Le 2 janv. 2017 9:46 AM, "Gnangarra" <gnanga...@gmail.com> a écrit : ​Like most in western countries you'll find most of the WMF staff are currently out of office so I wouldnt expect much back especially not officially from them until after the 9

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I just want to note that the question i raised here was about what WMF itself was doing about paid editing. I was unhappy to see so much in that statement about what the community can/should do. I agree with the Arbcom statement that while it is good that Legal noted that its comments

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Thanks for this Jacob. Would you please address Legal's approach to the following scenario: a company advertises Wikipedia editing services for clients, and there is no disclosure of paid editing by an editor employed by or affiliated with the company on Wikipedia. (In other words, a company

[Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has discussed taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit Wikipedia and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in en-WP at least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their websites, where

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

to do in the near future. > > > > > > If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we > aren't > > > planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something > > about > > > this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I thi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

. Am very interested to hear from the board and/or WMF management on this. Jytdog > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:50:07 -0800 > From: Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, > Wikimedia Legal <le...@wikimedia.org&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

that letter in the list. There are things the WMF could be doing that the community cannot. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <jytdogte...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your note, Jacob. > > It is great to know that WMF is happy to help with specific on-Wiki > issu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Thanks for your note, Jacob. It is great to know that WMF is happy to help with specific on-Wiki issues, working from the ground up, as it were. Yes members of the community are constantly playing whack-a-mole to deal with specific incidents. The reason I asked the original question, is that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Thanks Katherine. I look forward to hearing from someone. On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Katherine Maher <kma...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi Jytdog, all - > > A gentle and kind reminder that the WMF offices are closed for the holidays > right now. Please look for an ans

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

lls to address undisclosed paid > editing to the point that there is a genuine effect. > > Risker/Anne > > On 5 January 2017 at 13:53, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I should add: I spent a few months following the various AFD queues on > > WP lately, a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Just a quick note on the 350 edits per minute. Zach described that somewhat as "facts are constantly checked." In general many edits are vandalism and add false, defamatory, or nonsense content, and many edits add content that may or may not be factual (unsourced or otherwise flaky). Wikipedia